BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 751
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: cedillo
VERSION:
7/13/11
Analysis by: Art Bauer FISCAL: Yes
Hearing date: August 23, 2011 URGENCY: YES
SUBJECT:
Freeway construction
DESCRIPTION:
This bill repeals a provision of existing law that allows the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to build a
freeway without first securing a street closure agreement with
the affected local jurisdictions.
ANALYSIS:
Since 1939, California law has required Caltrans to enter into
an agreement with a city or county that will have a street
permanently closed due to freeway construction through the
community. In lieu of closing a street, Caltrans, with the
concurrence of a local agency, may construct a new alignment for
the local road as part of the freeway project
Existing law, since 1981, provides an exemption to the street
closure provision if the following conditions are met:
The freeway is in the California freeway and expressway
system and the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
has adopted a route for it.
Construction has commenced, but not completed, leaving
an uncompleted freeway segment.
Caltrans has determined that there is at least one
feasible alternative alignment for the route.
The CTC has certified an environmental document for the
unconstructed segment that includes consideration of the
impact of the project on the local community.
AB 751 (CEDILLO) Page 2
The unconstructed segment is within the jurisdiction of
the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(METRO).
Caltrans has been at an impasse on a street closure
agreement for ten years or more.
If the above conditions are met, the CTC may adopt an alignment
after a public hearing.
This bill deletes from existing law Caltrans' exemption from the
street closure provision.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose . The extension of the Long Beach Freeway
(I-710) from its terminus in the City of Alhambra to a
connection with the intersection of the Foothill Freeway
(I-210) and State Route 134 is noteworthy for its litigious
history. This bill would delete law enacted in 1981 that
attempted to resolve the disputes over the various proposed
alignments developed by Caltrans and allow construction to
begin. Caltrans has never exercised the authority in the
1981 law.
Statute first defined the predecessor to the I-710 in 1933,
and in 1947, the Legislature added the extension through
Alhambra, South Pasadena, and Pasadena to the description
of the freeway. In 1959, the state included the I-710 in
the state freeway and expressway system and completed the
I-710 present terminus in 1965. The California Highway
Commission, the CTC's predecessor, adopted a route to
extend the freeway through South Pasadena and Pasadena to
I-210 in 1964.
By the time Caltrans began designing the project, the area
had become heavily urbanized, and several homes in South
Pasadena were found to be architecturally significant.
Because of the impact on its community, South Pasadena
refused to sign a street closure agreement with Caltrans.
Further, community groups and South Pasadena sued over the
adequacy of the environmental documents for the extension,
resulting in the court enjoining Caltrans from constructing
the I-710 extension from 1973 to 1998. After the court
AB 751 (CEDILLO) Page 3
agreed that Caltrans prepared an adequate environmental
document, the Federal Highway Administration authorized the
construction of a project. The CTC also approved the
project, but in 1999, the court once again enjoined
Caltrans from further work because it had not adequately
considered the air quality impacts of the extension.
Finally, the CTC withdrew its approval of the project in
2004.
With the removal of the exemption from street closure
agreement, it is unlikely that a surface highway extension
of the I-710 will be constructed because South Pasadena
could refuse to enter into an agreement with Caltrans.
2. Tunnel Alternative . In the last decade, proponents of
the I-710 have explored the concept of constructing a
tunnel in the freeway corridor to close the gap between the
existing terminus of the I-710 in Alhambra and the
I-210/State Route 134. After analyzing the concept, METRO
determined that the tunnel alternative is feasible and
included $1 billion for the project in its Measure R,
-percent local transportation sales tax program approved
by the voters in 2008. In addition, METRO has included the
project in a preliminary program of public private
partnership projects that it intends to pursue. In the
meantime, Caltrans is preparing an environmental analysis
of the tunnel alternative.
3. Support and opposition to the bill . Over the years,
local governments, community groups, preservationists, and
other similar interests have opposed the freeway but have
now removed their opposition. The City of South Pasadena
supports this bill because it restores the applicability of
the street closure agreement, which allows the city to
prevent the construction of a surface freeway through its
jurisdiction. Community groups, such as the Singer Park
Neighborhood Association of Pasadena and the Los Angeles
Conservancy support this bill as well. The only
significant opposition to this bill is the San Gabriel
Valley Association of Governments, which believes that
removing the exemption from the street closure agreement
"has the potential to derail the significant progress that
has been recently been made on the 710 gap closure
project."
4. Previous version of this bill . The current language of
AB 751 (CEDILLO) Page 4
AB 751 was originally in another bill which passed the
Assembly. The language of that bill was deleted and
amended into AB 751. The votes shown below reflect the
action taken on the predecessor to AB 751.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 55-8
Appr: 13-2
Trans: 11-0
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
August 17, 2011)
SUPPORT: City of Burbank
City of Pasadena
City of South Pasadena
Los Angeles Conservancy
Natural Resources Defense Council
Singer Park Neighborhood Association
OPPOSED: San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments